search_local_splice_samples

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description restates this as 'Read-only', which is consistent though redundant. It adds value by stating the return behavior ('Returns exact local source paths for analyze_audio_file'), but does not disclose any limitations or edge cases beyond the read-only nature. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and scoping, then adds a functional note about the return value. Zero wasted words; every clause contributes.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a search tool with no output schema, the description communicates the key purpose, usage boundaries, and return behavior. It doesn't explain limit/maxDepth, but these are inferable from the schema. Given the sibling clutter, the explicit 'not cloud catalog' disambiguation makes it sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 50% (rootPath and query have descriptions). The description's phrasing 'under an explicit directory' aligns with rootPath and 'exact local source paths' clarifies the output, but it adds no additional semantics for limit or maxDepth beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema handles half the parameters and the description adds minimal extra context.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Search'), a precise resource ('local downloaded Splice audio assets'), and a scoping constraint ('under an explicit directory'). It also explicitly distinguishes from cloud catalog search, download, or sync, making it clear what this tool is and is not.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Clearly indicates this is for local assets as opposed to cloud catalog operations, and mentions that it returns paths for analyze_audio_file, which implies a usage context. However, it doesn't explicitly state 'use this when you need local sample paths for analysis' or list alternative tools for cloud search, though the 'not' phrasing provides adequate direction.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.